Injury Law Chambers Ltd vs Adelco Screen Process Ltd

This case concerned a dispute over the sale and performance of a Kornit compact 921 Breeze printer and an ET75G-3 Ecotex Plus Gas Fired Conveyor dryer sold by Adelco Screen Process Ltd to Injury Law Chambers Ltd.

TLDR:

• Injury Law Chambers Ltd purchased printing machinery from Adelco Screen Process Ltd.
• The machinery was alleged to be defective and unfit for the intended purpose.
• The court found that the Claimant could not reject the machinery under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
• The Claimant's case for breach of express warranty and collateral contract was also dismissed.

The Claimant, Injury Law Chambers Ltd, a law firm engaged in a side business of producing printed T-shirts, purchased a Kornit compact 921 Breeze printer and an ET75G-3 Ecotex Plus Gas Fired Conveyor dryer from the Defendant, Adelco Screen Process Ltd. The purchase was facilitated through third-party finance provided by Amicus Asset Finance Group Limited.

Following the delivery and installation of the machinery, the Claimant experienced issues with the printer's performance. Despite multiple attempts by the Defendant and the manufacturer to resolve the issues, the problems persisted.

The Claimant alleged that the Defendant breached implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, specifically that the goods were of satisfactory quality and fit for the intended purpose. Additionally, the Claimant argued that there was a breach of express warranty and a collateral contract.

The court found that the contract for the sale of the machinery was between the Defendant and Amicus, not the Claimant. As such, the Claimant did not have a direct statutory cause of action under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Furthermore, the court determined that Amicus had acted in a manner inconsistent with rejecting the goods, thereby losing the right to reject them.

The Claimant's case for breach of express warranty was also dismissed. The court found that the Defendant and the manufacturer had made sufficient efforts to repair the printer and had even offered a replacement.

Regarding the collateral contract claim, the court held that the Claimant failed to demonstrate that any specific statements made by the Defendant were intended to have contractual force or were inaccurate. The court found no evidence supporting the Claimant's allegations of a collateral warranty.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the Claimant's case, concluding that the Claimant could not reject the machinery and had no valid claims for breach of warranty or collateral contract.